Irrigation Scheduling of Potato to Increase the Water Productivity under Drip Irrigation System on Sandy Soil
Eid, S. F. M. ; Tarek S. M. and E. A. El Samra
Agric. Eng. Res. Inst. (AEnRI), Agric. Res. Center (ARC), Egypt, P. O. Box 256, Cairo, Dokki – Giza – Egypt
ABSTRACT
The use of irrigation scheduling in modern irrigation systems are a vital role to improve water productivity in arid regions. In Egypt, annually total cultivated area of potatoes on average 160 thousand feddan and this area is estimated at about 15% of the total allocated space for growing vegetables. Surface (SDI) and subsurface drip (SSDI) irrigation are highly efficient, but is not usually used properly.The object of this experiment is to to enhance yield and to save water on potato crop under irrigation methods. Results show that the water requirements was 1993.66 m3/fed. in summer season compared with 1838.18 in Nili season after taking into account the proportion of crop coefficient, with irrigation efficiency was 90% and the rate of leaching were 10% .While the total water applied crop growth period were 1810, 1971, 1713 and 1892 m3/fed./season in the Nili season at T11, T12, T21 and T22 respectively, compared with traditional irrigation was 2750 m3/fed./season, while in the Summer season were 2050, 2243, 1900 and 2155 m3/fed./season at T11, T12, T21 and T22 respectively, compared with traditional irrigation was 2920 m3/fed./season. The water storage (water consumed) were 715.8 and 730.4 m3/fed./season in the Nili season at T11(SDI), T21(SSDI)respectively, while its values were 814.8 and 769.2 m3/fed./season in the Summery season at T11(SDI), T21(SSDI)respectively. The storage efficiency were 79.7 and 74.7% in the Nili season at T11(SDI), T21(SSDI)respectively, while it's were 83.1 and 78.2 % in the Summer season at T11(SDI), T21(SSDI)respectively. The irrigation water productivity ranges from 4.9 to 7.1 kg/m3 in Nili seasons and 5 to 7.1 in Summery seasons. The irrigation water productivity were 7.0 and 7.1 kg/m3 under T21 in Nili and Summery seasons respectively using subsurface drip. However it's were 6.5 and 6.1 kg/m3 under T21 in Nili and Summery seasons respectively using surface drip, compared with traditional irrigation treatment (T00) was 4.9 and 5 kg/m3 in Nili and Summery seasons respectively. The results were for water saving 34.2, 28.3, 37.7, 31.2% at the Nili season and 29.8, 23.2, 34.9, 26.2%, in Summery season under treatments T11, T12, T21 and T22 respectively.
Keywords: Potato, Surface drip and Subsurface Drip Irrigation, Irrigation Scheduling, Water Requirement, Irrigation Water Productivity, Water Save, Water Storage and Storage Efficiency .
INTRODUCTION
Egyptian population has increased more than three times, from 30 million in 1953 to more than 100 million at the beginning of the year 2017, while the area of its cultivated land has changed slightly from 2.3 million hectares to approximately 3.6 million hectares during the same period. This has led to a shortage in food supplies.
Consequently, management of sandy soils through proper reclamation measures to increase crop productivity assumes a great deal of interest in a day where in the available land area for cultivation is declining all the time.
Potatoes is one of the main vegetables crops in the world table, and it is grown in a large scale. It occupies the second site after the grain in importance. It is a source of energy instead of bread and rice. Potatoes is planted in many of the same moderate climate countries. In Egypt, annually total cultivated area of potatoes on average 160 thousand feddan and this area is estimated at about 15% of the total allocated space for growing vegetables. Although, it is imported annually no less than 40 thousand tons of potatoes tuber from Western European countries. It is one of the major economic importance in export (Ramadan and Shalaby 2017). Potato is an important vegetable crop for Egypt with a national cultivation area for 2012 crop year, summer seasons 145115 feddan, Nili seasons 55353 feddan and winter seasons 170963 feddan approximately 370 thousand feddans (fed. = 0.42 ha) yearly, (Farag et al. 2015).
Irrigation Scheduling should provide the crop with the right amount of water, when the crop needs it, at the lowest cost and with least impact on the environment.
Irrigation scheduling is the process of determining and planning: - when to irrigate - how much water your crop requires -how fast to apply water to your crop (application rate) - how often to irrigate. Irrigation is a significant production expense. The maximum economic response to
irrigation can only be achieved with a practical and effective scheduling system, (Shock et al. 2013).
Scheduling water application enhancing drip irrigation method, by increasing water use efficiency, while inadequate irrigation causes water stress and reduces production (Wang et al. 2006). However, Hedi Ben Ali et al. (2014) found that water content within the root zone was always higher under surface drip irrigation (SDI) system and that its fluctuation is especially more restricted than that recorded under drip irrigation (DI) system. This could explain high irrigation efficiency values recorded with surface drip irrigation (SDI) treatments where laterals buried at 15 cm depth's have generated the highest water productivity. However, for laterals buried at 20 cm depth's and with emitters delivering 4 l/h, deep water percolation is more evident.
Abdel-Moneim and Salem, (2014) found that the response of some potato cultivars to the method of drip irrigation under the soil surface were a significant increases comparing with surface drip irrigation method. They added that studied the influence of surface and subsurface drip irrigation systems on growth and potato yield. They found that, the response of some potato cultivars to the method of drip irrigation under the soil surface were a significant increases in growth and yield during comparing with surface drip irrigation system. Amer, et al. (2016) found that the water use by potato in the fall growing season was 35%
lower compared to the spring growing season. Water saving per season was 28%, 18%, and 11% in spring growing season and 17.5%, 11.0%, and 7.0% in fall for furrow partial, trickle point, and trickle line methods compared with furrow traditional method, respectively.
The goal of this experiment was to determine the influence of irrigation scheduling on productivity of potato crop under irrigation methods, surface and subsurface drip irrigation with sandy soil condition.
Eid, S. F. M.et al.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
1 Experimental site
Field experiments were conducted during two seasons. Nili season starting from September to January of 2016 – 2017 and the Summer season starting from January to May 2017 at El-Nubaria district, Beheira Governorate, Egypt (latitude 300 45\ 52\\ N, and longitude 300 05\ 10\\ E, and mean altitude 21 m above sea level). The experimental of design was split plot for three irrigation system, surface drip irrigation (SDI), subsurface drip irrigation (SSDI) and furrow irrigation (Traditional irrigation). The area of each plot is 210 m2 (7 m × 30 m). The total area of the field experiment was 1050 m2. Plants row spacing was 0.7 m, and the distance between each plant was 0.3 m. The soil was ridged to 0.25 m above the tubers and the distance from top of the ridge to the base of the furrow was around 0.35 m.
The surface drip irrigation lines were (GR) with outlets spacing every 0.3 m and the discharge of the emitter was 4 L/h at 1.5 bar working pressure. Subsurface drip irrigation lines laid above and under ridges of plant rows, and the installation depth of the subsurface drip lines was 0.25 m, plants were spaced 0.3 m along the rows, with distance between the rows equal to 0.7 m. All plots irrigated water was obtained from open channel and ECi of 1.35 ds./m.
The experiment consisted of three irrigation systems, Surface and Subsurface drip irrigation systems and two irrigation scheduling methods:
* T11(SDI) and T21(SSDI) represent both surface and subsurface drip irrigation respectively, the method fixed amount of water applied to crop every one day in initial stage, each two days in develop and middle stage and each three days in maturity stage from planting till harvest.
* T12(SDI) and T22(SSDI) represent both surface and subsurface drip irrigation respectively. Applying irrigation just before the available soil water is depleted to 70-65% (i.e. 30-35% allowable depletion) of tuber initiation and 65-60% (i.e. 35 - 40% allowable depletion) 35% of total available water (TAW) in the root zone, for other growth stages, and replenishing available soil water near field capacity in the root zone will greatly assist in producing a high-quality and high-yielding potato crop.
(Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, 2011).
* T00 Traditional surface furrow irrigation.
2 Soil type and its characteristics
The soil of experimental site is classified as sandy loam soil. Some physical properties of the experimental soil is presented in Table (1). Irrigation water was obtained from an irrigation channel passing through the experimental area, with pH 7.35, and an ECe of 1.35 dS/m.
Table 1. Soil physical properties of the experimental site.
Particle size distribution Soil
Depth (Cm) Sand,
% Silt,
% Clay,
% Soil Texture
Bulk Density
Mg/m³ F.C,
% W.P,
% SP,
%
0-20 66.5 17.5 16 1.47 16.1 8.5 33.2 20-40 65.3 18.6 16.1 1.46 15.9 8.3 32.8 40-60 66.8 17.2 16
Sandy
Loam 1.47 16.0 8.4 33.2 3 Potato cultivation and harvesting seasons:
There are two major cultivation seasons for potato, Nili season cultivated during September 20/9/2016. It was
harvested in 13/1/2017 with about 115 day duration crop and may be divided into four stages namely initial: 20 days, developmental: 30 days, middle: 35 days and tuber maturity 30 days. Summer season cultivated during February 3/2/2017. It was harvested in 8/6/2017 with about 125 day duration crop. It may be divided into four stages namely initial: 25 days, developmental: 30 days, middle:
40 days and tuber maturity 30 days.
4 Nutrient management
The application of farmyard manure compost was applied uniformly at the rate of 20 m3/fed. during soil preparation, and followed by recommended potassium (as potassium sulphate); phosphorus (as triple super phosphate) and nitrogen (as ammonium nitrate) fertilizers at the rate of 50; 150; and 120 kg/fed., respectively, (Abdel-Ati, 1998). In all treatments, neither diseases were noticed throughout the crop season nor insecticides and fungicides were applied.
5 Estimation of crop evapotranspiration and grass water requirements
The meteorological data were taken from El-Nubaria meteorological station according to the formal data from the Egyptian Ministry of Agriculture. Reference evapotranspiration (ET0, mm/day) was calculated according to the Penman-Monteith (PM) equation as specified by the FAO protocol (Allen et al., 1998) for irrigation scheduling.
As crop evapotranspiration ETc can be calculated as:
ETc = Kc × ET0... (1) Where:-
ETc : Crop evapotranspiration (mm/day), Kc : Crop coefficient (dimensionless),
ET0 : Reference crop evapotranspiration (mm/day).
In turn the Grass water requirement (GWR), is calculated by following (Allen et al., 1998).
GWR = (ETo * Kc) * LR * 4.2/Ea ……… (2) Where:-
GWR:Grass water irrigation requirement for crop m3/Fed./day Kc: Crop coefficient [dimensionless]. (as well as, The crop coefficient
was taken as 0.5, 0.56, 0.88, 0.99 and 0.92 in Nili season and 0.47, 0.62, 0.93, 0.95 and 0.74 in Summer season respectively, depend on the day stages, As discussed by (Amer et al., 2016)).
ETo : Reference crop evapotranspiration [mm/day].
LR: Leaching requirement as a fraction LR (%) (Assumed 10%
of the total applied water).
Ea: Efficiency of irrigation water system, % (Assumed 90% under surface drip irrigation and subsurface drip system).
4.2 is a conversion factor transforming the estimate from millimetres per day to cubic meters per Fadden per day (Feddan = 4200 m2).
6 Measurement of soil water content, storage and water balance
Once the experiment began, the volumetric soil water content (θv) was measured daily to a depth of 0.5 m at 0.1 m intervals in each of the irrigation treatments using sensor capacitance probes (Terra Sen Dacom). The Terra Sen Dacom device is a complete soil moisture monitoring system (model, Dacom company, Nertherlands) that continuously monitors the θv over several depths in the root zone. The sensor Terra Sen devices were installed 0.5 m deep in the potato row between two healthy plants in the field. Soil moisture content and storage calculate the water storage in soil layers of 0–10, 10–20, 20–30, 30–40 and 40–50 cm. Soil water storage was calculated for each depth of a soil profile, using the following formula (Biniak-Pierog 2014):
Storage (mm) = 10 × θv × h ...(3) Where:-
θv : soil moisture content (m2 m–2) and h : the thickness (cm) of the soil profile.
Soil water storage was the sum of water storage for each soil level to a depth of 0.5 m. All measurements were taken at daily time intervals.
Soil water storage efficiency, (Es) is defined as the ratio of the volume of water stored in the root zone to the volume of water required to fill the root zone to near field capacity (Suat et al., 2011). It is expressed as:
Es = [Vs / (Vfc - Va)] x 100... (4) Where:-
Es = soil water storage efficiency (%)
Vs = volume of water stored in the soil root zone from an irrigation event (m3/fed)
Vfc = volume capacity at field capacity in the crop root zone (m3/fed) Va = volume of water in the soil root zone prior to an irrigation event
(m3/fed)
The water balance method in the soil was accomplished counting the irrigation depths applied (I), the difference of soil moisture content between two irrigations (∆SW) measuring changes in moisture content after and before irrigation at the root zone and effective precipitation (Pe) (Equation 5). As Garcia et al. (2009), other variables such as water balance as superficial drainage, deep drainage, capillary rise, and variation of subsurface flows of input and output were considered null, having in mind the characteristics of the area and the irrigation system used.
ETc = I+ Pe ± ∆SW ... (5)
To evaluate the effective precipitation (Pe), it was considered the precipitated water blade (mm) which provided changes in soil humidity, via Terra-Sen sensor, and which was effectively available for the culture.
The irrigation depth was calculated adopted the percentage of wetted area of 50%, due to the increased representation of the operation area of drippers in the rows of cultivation. Due to the increase in the percentage of shading of the potato under the cultivation area, the percentage of shaded area (PSA) started to be used in the calculation of the
depth, considering an application efficiency of 90%
(Mantovani et al., 2009).
7 Potato yield
Harvesting potato was started manually after 115 day from sowing In the Nili season and 125 day from sowing in the Summer season. Yield samples of potato tubers from each treatment and its replications were recorded.
8 Irrigation Water Productivity (IWP, kg/m3) The total irrigation water productivity (IWP, kg/m3) as follows by Paredes et al. (2017). As discussed by Pereira et al. (2012), the term IWP is used instead of water use efficiency.
TWU
IWP = Ya ... (6) Where:-
IWP: Irrigation Water Productivity, kg/m3: : Total yield Kg /fed., and
: Total water use, m3/fed/season.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
1. Estimation of reference evapotranspiration and crop water requirements:
Data in Table (2) illustrate the results of the ETo calculations for weather station located in El-Nubaria Station region under current and future conditions, the irrigation seasons, from 26/9/2016 to 8/1/2017 (105 day) Nili season and 9/2/2017 to 3/6/2017 (115 day) Summer season. The average values of daily ETo through the peanut growing season were 4.35 and 5.0 mm/day in Nili and Summery seasons respectively. And table (2) show estimates of ETc values, it is clear that ETc values increased as the plant age progresses till the mid-season growth stages, then the rate was decreased till the end of the season, the average values of daily ETc through the peanut growing season were 3.13 and 3.54 mm/day in Nili and Summery seasons respectively, where were values 2.9 and 2.08 mm/day in initial and maturity crop growth stage in Nili season respectively while were 1.25 and 5.1 mm/day in initial and maturity crop growth stage in Summer season respectively. Also it the highest values were 3.85 and 5.18 mm/ day in Nili and Summer seasons respectively.
Table 2. Average Reference Evapotranspiration (mm), Crop Coefficients, Crop Evapotranspiration (mm) and Grass Water Requirements (m3/fed./ month)
Month Days ETo, mm Kc ETc, mm GWR, m3/fed./day GWR, m3/fed./month Nili season
Sep. 5 5.84 0.5 2.92 14.98 74.95
Oct. 31 5.52 0.56 3.09 15.87 491.90
Nov. 30 4.38 0.88 3.85 19.79 593.58
Dec 31 3.76 0.99 3.72 19.11 592.36
Jan. 8 2.26 0.92 2.08 10.67 85.39
Average, % 4.35 3.13
Total irrigation water requirements, m3/fed./season. 1838.18
Summer season
Feb. 20 2.65 0.47 1.25 6.39 127.87
Mar. 31 3.29 0.62 2.04 10.47 324.60
Apr. 30 4.46 0.93 4.15 21.29 638.76
May. 31 5.45 0.95 5.18 26.59 823.91
June. 3 6.89 0.74 5.10 26.17 78.52
Average, % 5.00 3.54
Total irrigation water requirements, m3/fed./season. 1993.66
Growing period Nili season (115 days) starting from 20th Sep. till harvesting date 13th Jan.
Growing period Summer season (125 days) starting from 3st February till harvesting date 8th Jun.
Eid, S. F. M.et al.
Also table (2) showed that the irrigation water requirements (m3/fed.) after taking into account the proportion of crop coefficient, with irrigation efficiency was 90% and the rate of leaching were 10% and found that average overall irrigation water requirements was 1993.66 m3/fed./season in Summer season compared with 1838.18 m3/fed./season in Nili season theses results agree with many researchers Amer et al. (2016).
But Badr et al., (2012) reported the total ETc of potato was 362 mm (1520 m3/fed.) at the full irrigation supply in Nubaria region, west of Nile Delta, Egypt. They did experiment on late maturity potato variety ‘Cara’
(Solanum tubero-sum L.) during late summer from September to December, 2010 from FAO recommended value (Allen et al., 1998).
2. Amounts of irrigation water applied
The total amount of water applied during the seasons for different treatments are given in Fig. (1 and 2). The results show that the total water applied was the highest at traditional irrigation (T00) while the lowest values were obtained for subsurface drip irrigation system (SSDI) in the Nili and Summer seasons, where the total amounts of irrigation water applied under subsurface (SSDI) and surface (SDI) drip irrigation system using soil water balance (SWB) and traditional irrigation (T00) were 1713, 1810 and 2750 m3/fed./seasons respectively for Nili seasons. While the values were given 1900, 2050 and 2920 m3/fed./seasons respectively for Summer. At using local farmers, the results were 1892, 1971 and 2750 m3/fed./seasons respectively for Nili seasons, while the values were given 2155, 2243 and 2920 m3/fed./seasons respectively for Summer seasons, table (3).
The total water applied crop growth period Fig.
(3) were 1810, 1971, 1713 and 1892 m3/fed. in the Nili season at T11, T12, T21 and T22 respectively, compared with tradition irrigation was 2750 m3/fed. while in the Summer season were 2050, 2243, 1900 and 2155 m3/fed. at T11, T12, T21 and T22 respectively, compared with tradition irrigation was 2920 m3/fed., table (3).
Fig. 1. Irrigation water applied (m3/fed.) for growth stages of potato crop Nili Season for surface and subsurface drip irrigation system under different treatments.
Fig. 2. Irrigation water applied (m3/fed.) for growth stages of potato crop Summer Season for surface and subsurface drip irrigation system under different treatment.
Fig. 3. Total irrigation water applied (m3/fed.) for surface and subsurface drip irrigation systems under different treatment compared with Traditional irrigation.
3. Soil moisture content, Water storage and Storage efficiency
Fig. (4 and 5) shows the soil moisture before and after irrigated for the different patterns of distribution in response to the different irrigation treatments. So when comparing SDI with SSDI system it was observed that in the subsurface drip irrigation (the drip line was buried at 25 cm from the soil surface), except that surface soil later was not completely wetted as in the case of surface drip. However, the upward capillary movement of water was not sufficient and soil water content at the surface decreased significantly where most wetting occurred close to the water source. Where the average soil moisture values during the initial stage (until 30 - 40 allowable depletion) were similar to each other in different treatments. The average soil moisture values at depths of 0.5 m (0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 m) were either above or near the F.C after starting the irrigation treatments. But there is a difference between the soil moisture under the subsurface drip irrigation and surface drip irrigation because the water movement up and down in the subsurface drip either in surface irrigation is movement down only, therefore, when applying irrigation scheduling using soil water balance, it is recommended to consider soil moisture in the surface layer (0.1 m) in the difference of soil moisture content between two irrigations (∆SW) measuring.
Table 3. Average soil water storage (m3/fed.) and Soil water storage efficiency, % under different treatments.
Surface drip irrigation system, (SWB)T11
Subsurface drip irrigation system, (SWB)T21
Nili Season
Water required to fill the root zone to near field capacity, m3/fed. 897.96 977.97
Water storage in the root zone, m3/fed. 715.89 730.38
Soil water storage efficiency, % 79.7 74.7
Summer Season
Water required to fill the root zone to near field capacity, m3/fed. 980.49 983.64
Water storage in the root zone, m3/fed. 814.8 769.23
Soil water storage efficiency, % 83.1 78.2
The seasonal volume of water storage in the root zone, m3/fed. (water consumed) and soil water storage efficiency are shows in table (3), the sum of water stored for each soil level to a depth of 0.5 m., The values all measurements were taken at weekly time intervals, the results of the table (3) showed that the seasonal water storage (water consumed) ranged from 715.89 to 730.38 m3/fed./season in the Nili season at T11, T21 respectively, while its values were 814.8 and 769.23 m3/fed./season in the Summer season at T11, T21 respectively. This reduction in total amount of water consumption is mainly due to short depth of the sensor installed in the site (50 cm). The storage efficiency were 79.7 and 74.7 % in the Nili season at T11, T21 respectively, while it's were 83.1 and 78.2 % in the Summer season at T11, T21 respectively.
4. Irrigation Water Productivity (IWP) and Water Saved Data on water productivity for all treatments are presented in table (4). The amount of applied irrigation water gave the higher IWP and subsurface drip method recorded superior values over surface drip especially under (SWB) T21 in Nili and summer seasons treatments. Since the source of water is at a certain depth when subsurface drip is used, the soil surface usually remains drier than for the surface drip irrigation This leads to the reduction of evaporation from the soil surface and consequently to an increase in transpiration and overall IWP the values of water productivity ranges from 4.9 to 7.0 kg/m3 in Nili seasons and 5 to 7.1 in Summery seasons. The subsurface drip irrigation methods is the highest values of water productivity were 7.0 and 7.1 kg/m3 under T21(SWB) treatment in Nili and Summery seasons respectively.
However the surface drip irrigation methods is the highest
values of water productivity were 6.5 and 6.1 kg/m3 under T21(SWB) treatment in Nili and Summery seasons respectively. Compared with traditional irrigation treatment (T00) was 4.9 and 5 kg/m3 in Nili and Summery seasons respectively. Irrigation water productivity (IWP) was observed to be significantly affected by both the irrigation system and irrigation scheduling (Table 4). IWP was higher under subsurface drip irrigation T21 (SWB) than other treatments. The irrigation system has great effect on water productivity. Subsurface drip irrigation under soil water balance treatment improved water productivity.
These results are in accordance with those obtained by Yamac et al. 2014. water saving was significantly higher in subsurface drip over surface drip and compared with Traditional irrigation (T00), under all irrigation treatments.
Maximum water saving was obtained by (SWB) in the Nili and Summer seasons. The results were for water saving 34.2, 28.3, 37.7, 31.2% at the Nili season and 29.8, 23.2, 34.9, 26.2%, in Summer season under treatments T11, T12, T21 and T22 respectively. Results are in similar with those obtained by Kahlon and Khera (2015) reported that yield water use efficiency values for potato crops in Spain ranged between 6.3 and 8.6 kg/m3. the other hand the treatment, T11(SWB) irrigation water saved was 8.2%
compared to T12 under surface drip irrigation system and T21(SWB) irrigation water saved was 8.2% compared to T22 under subsurface drip irrigation system in Nili season, T11(SWB) irrigation water saved was 8.6% compared to T12 under surface drip irrigation system and T21(SWB) irrigation water saved was 11.8 % compared to T22 under subsurface drip irrigation system in summer season.
Table 4. Total water applied (m3/fed.), Yield (kg/fed.), Irrigation Water Productivity (kg/m3) and Water saved (%) under different treatment.
Water Save, % Total water
applied, m3/fed.
Yield, kg/fed.
Irrigation Water
Productivity, kg/m3 Traditional system Type of irrigation
methods Treatments
Nili Season
T11(SWB) 1810 11750 6.5 34.2 8.2
Surface drip irrigation T12 1971 11430 5.8 28.3 0
T21(SWB) 1713 12000 7.0 37.7 9.5
Subsurface drip irrigation T22 1892 11800 6.2 31.2 0
Traditional irrigation T00 2750 13500 4.9 0
Summer Season
T11(SWB) 2050 12600 6.1 29.8 8.6
Surface drip irrigation T12 2243 11430 5.1 23.2 0
T21(SWB) 1900 13400 7.1 34.9 11.8
Subsurface drip irrigation T22 2155 12800 5.9 26.2 0
Traditional irrigation T00 2920 14600 5.0 0
Eid, S. F. M.et al.
CONCLUSOIN
The obtained results, it may be concluded that:
There was saving in the water applied under subsurface drip irrigation compared with surface drip irrigation system using (SWB) by a percentages of 5.35% (60 m3) and 7.3%
(138.7 m3) under Nili and Summery seasons respectively, it is enough to irrigate another area equal to 147.11 m2 (0.035 fed.) and 306.6 m2 (0.073 fed.) under Nili and Summery seasons, respectively. While using the traditional drip irrigation system the results were as follows, a percentages of 4.01% (75.86 m3) and 3.9% (84.04 m3) under Nili and Summery seasons respectively, it is enough to irrigate another area equal to 168.39 m2 (0.04 fed.) and 163.8 m2 (0.039 fed.) under Nili and Summery seasons, respectively. This also saves energy and reduces overall costs and thus increases revenue.
The water productivity (kg/m3) for subsurface drip irrigation treatments gave the highest values using each of (SWB) and (the traditional drip irrigation system) comparing with Surface drip irrigation treatment under the same conditions. Which subsurface or surface drip irrigation treatments using (SWB) gave 7.0 and 7.1 kg/m3 for both Nili and summer season respectively.
While the lowest values were for traditional irrigation 4.9 and 5.0 kg/m3 for both Nili and summer
seasons respectively. Therefore subsurface or surface drip irrigation treatments using (SWB) methods caused reduction in the total applied water compared with the traditional methods.
The total water applied crop growth period in the summer season increases by 9.8 and 11% compared to the Nili season under subsurface and surface drip irrigation using (SWB) respectively. There were no differences between irrigation methods (subsurface and surface drip irrigation system) using (SWB) on storage efficiency,%.
REFERENCES
Abdel-Ati, Y.Y. (1998) Yield and quality of potato as affected by phosphorus, chicken manure and seed tuber size.
Assiut J. Agric. Sci., 29 (5):129-147.
Abdel-Moneim , S.K. and A.A. Salem, (2014) Effect of two Drip Irrigation Methods (Surface and Subsurface) in Growth and Yield of three Potato (Solnum TuberosumI) Cultivars Australian Journal of basic and applied Sciences, 15 September 2014,Pages : 252 – 258.
Alberta, Ag. and Forestry, (2011) Irrigation scheduling for potato in southern alberta. Agdex 258/561- 1.www.agriculture.alberta.ca.
Allen, R.G.; L.S. Pereira; D. Raes; and M. Smith, (1998).
Crop evapotranspiration. Guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage. Paper No. 56, FAO, Rome, Italy.
Amer, K.H.; A.A. Samak, and J.L. Hatfield, (2016) Effect of irrigation method and non-uniformity of irrigation on potato performance and quality.Journal of water Resource and Protection, 8,277-292.
Badr, M.A.; W.A. El-Tohamy and A.M. Zaghloul, (2012) Yield and water use efficiency of potato grown under different irrigation and nitrogen levels in an arid region.
Agricultural Water Management. 110: 9-15.
Biniak-Pierog, M. (2014) Dynamics of water content in light bare soil in summer half-year in the period of 2003–
2012 and its agrometeorological determinants. – J.
Water Land Dev. 22: 41-50.
Farag, A.A.; A. Abdrabbo and Manal M.H. Gad EL- Moula, (2015) Water requirements for potato production under climate change. ISSN: 2394-5788, Vol-2, Issue-9 PP. 1357-1375.
Garcia, Y Garcia A.; L.C. Guerra and G. Hoogenboom, (2009) Water use and water use efficiency of sweet corn under different weather conditions and soil moisture regimes. Agricultural Water Management, Amsterdam V. 96, n.10, P. 1369-1376.
Hedi Ben Ali, M. H.; B. Rachid; and S. Ahmed, (2014) Comparative study between surface and subsurface drip irrigation systems: Case of potato crop International Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies Volume 6, Issue 4, July 2014, Pages 860–870.
Kahlon, M.S. and K.L. Khera, (2015) Irrigation water productivity and potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) yield in different planting methods under mulch conditions. Journal of Agriculture and Ecology Research International, Article no. 038, 3(3):107-112.
ISSN: 2394 - 1073.
Mantovani, E.C.; S. Bernardo; L.F. Palaretti, (2009) Irrigation principle method. Ed. UFV, 355P.
Ramadan, M.E.; O.I. Shalaby, (2017) Potatoes Cultivation and Production. Issued by General administration of Agr. Culture Technical Bulletin No(6).
Pareds, P.; G.C. Rodrigues; M.D. Cameira; M.O. Torres and L.S. Pereira, (2017) Assessing yield, water productivity and farm economic returns of malt barley as influenced by the sowing dates and supplemental irrigation. Agricultural water Management (179) 132-143.
Pereira, L.S.; I. Cordery and I. Iacovides, (2012) Improved indicators of water use performance and productivity for sustainable water conservation and saveing. Agric. water Manag. 108. 39-51.
Shock, C. C.; F. X.Wang; R. Flok; E. Eldredge and A.
Pereira, (2013) Successful Potato Irrigation Scheduling. Malheur Experiment Station, Oregon State University. Available online at http://catalog.extension.oregonstate. edu/em86 11.
Suat, I.; L.O. Odhiambo; W.L. Kranz; and D.E.
Eisenhauer, (2011) "Irrigation Efficiency and Uniformity, and Crop Water Use Efficiency"
Biological Systems Engineering: Papers and Publications. 451. http://digitalcommons.unl. edu/
biosysengfacpub/451
Wang, F.; Y. Kang and S. Liu, (2006) Effects of Drip Irrigation Frequency on Soil Wetting Pattern and Potato Growth in North China Plain. Agricultural Water Management, 79, pp 248 - 264.
Yamac, S.S.; V. Cantore; F. Wassar; M.H. Sellami; R.
Albrizio; A.M. Stellacci and M. Todorovic, (2014) Yield and water use efficiency of early potato grown under different irrigation regimes. International Journal of Plant Production 8(3): 409-428.
QRSTUVا XYار[\] ^R_`aV\] يUVا م\de fgh QRi\jVا QRk\aelا ةء\opVا qrUV sط\uvVا لxygjV يUVا QVو{k {R| {jgT حxar URj~
، {jgT €V\~ قر\ط
و
‚RSƒ XS| م\y|
QR|ار„Vا Q~{`…Vا ثxg] {…‡T –
QR|ار„Vا ثxgvVا „ˆUT –
Q|ار„Vا ةرازو -
UyT .
RSTUا WXYZ[\ ]\ ^طZ`aUا Rabcd efإ ]\ hij ،lmاو قZ`p hqr عرud hbUا
ى hj لxyUا ecz hpZ{Uا l|}~Uا Wb[dو •UZcUا ةe•Z\ hj ‚XƒX•RUا ‚X•ا„yUا WXYZ[~Uا
hUا}f ^طZ`aUا ل}S[~z ‚rرu…~Uا ‚fZƒ~Uا hUZ~†إ رe‡d RS\ hjو ،‚X~ھ‰ا 160
hUا}f W{~d ‚fZƒ~Uا ه„ھو ،ناej ŒUأ 15
تاوR•TUZz ‚rرu…~Uا ‚fZƒ~Uا ]\ ٪
، أو ن ءZ’“
ة
يRUا ماeTbmا h[`ƒUا –X‡…bUZz
bUاو [
— h[`m
˜XUZr ]™Uو ، ZiU يeXq‡bUا ماeTbmšا ZidءZ’“ ]\ Wq‡›
. œU„U
› فei ا„ھ ž[aUا hUإ ‚mارد يRUا ‚Uوe†
–X‡…bUZz يRUا h\Z p —[d
h[`m —[bUاو h[`ƒUا
¡ا ]Xƒ[bU
‚X†Zbp هZX~Uا ةefو ةءZ’“ ljرو
، œUذو
‚X•Z~Uا تZ†ZXbfšا بZƒ[z
\ ماeTbmZz ‚Uec~Uا žXbp}\ نZ~…z ‚UدZc وZ’Uا
) 56 ( ةZX~Uا ‚jZ¤إو hqr اe~bc\
يRUا ‚Uوe†
¥j W{~bd hbUاو h[`m —[bUاو h[`ƒUا –X‡…bUZz يRUا مZ p ]\ W“ —[d تx\Zc~Uا
T12
، T22 U
\Z …
¥ h[`ƒUا –X‡…bUZz يRUا
¦XdRbUا hqr h[`m —[bUاو اe~bc\
م}› يدZcUا عراu~Uا مZ …z يRUا hqr }~…Uا •m}\ ¦ƒf مZ›أ ثx¨ •¨ ]X\}› •¨
تx\Zc~Uاو T11
، T21
hqr اe~bc\ ¦XdRbUا hqr h[`m —[bUاو h[`ƒUا –X‡…bUZz يRUا ¥\Z …U
h•Z~Uا ناudšا ي„Uا
hqr e~bc›
ةui†أ ‚zRbUا ‚z}طر ‚a|اR\
) Terra Sen Dacom (
©~cz ‚ba{~Uا 0.5
b\
R e…r W‡[Uا hj ]XdZap ]Xz ^طZ`aUا ŒY .
[¤وأ
— نأ ª•Zb…Uا
تZ†ZXbfšا
‚X•Z~Uا žXbp}\ نZ~…z ‚UدZc\ ماeTbmZz ‚z}ƒ[~Uا —pZ“
1993.66 و 1838.18
3م / ناej / •m}\
•m}\ hj و h’XSUا Uا hqX…
¦XdRbUا hqr „«‰ا ecz
hj ‚aƒp رZabršا
WXYZ[~Uا W\Zc\
و يRUا ةءZ’“
90 c\و ٪ W\Z WXƒyUا 10 pZ“و ٪
— }~…Uا •m}\ لx« ZXqcj ‚jZ•~Uا هZX~Uا ‚X~“
1810
، 1971
، 1713 ، 1892 و 2050 ، 2243 ، 1900 ، 2155
3م / ناej / •m}\
•m}~Uا hj Uا hqX…
¦XdRbUا hqr h’XSUاو تx\Zc~qU
T11
، T12
، T21
، T22
،hUا}bUا ¥qr UZz
يeXq‡bUا يRUا l\ ‚pرZ‡~
2750 و 2920
3م / ناej /
•m}\
…Uا •m}~Uا hj hqX
¦XdRbUا hqr h’XSUاو .
dاو ]\ ¬•
هZX~Uا
‚q\Zc~Uا —[d —pZ“ ‚~X| ¥qrا نا ‚™qibƒ~Uا )
T12
(
—pZ“ žXf ¥’XSUا •m}~Uا ¥j 2243
3م / ناej / ¥[`ƒUا –X‡…bUZz ىRqU ‚aƒ…UZz •m}\
ىeXq‡bUا ‚q\Zc~qU ¥•Z~Uا كxibmšا ]\ ‚X~“ W|ا ناو )
T21
( 1713
3م / ناej / و hqX…Uا •m}~Uا hj •m}\
˜puT~Uا هZX~Uا —pZ“و ،h•Z~Uا ناudšا ‚‡›Rط hqr يRUا ‚Uوe† ZiXj e~bc› hbUا
رو„®Uا ‚‡`…~z )
هZX~qU ‚™qibƒ~Uا (
715.8 و 730.4
3م / ناej / •m}\
•m}~Uا hj Uا hqX…
تx\Zc~qU (SDI) T11
، T21(SSDI) —pZ“ ]Xf hj ،hUا}bUا ¥qr
814.8 و 769.2
3م / ناej / hj •m}\
ŒXSUا •m}~Uا Zc~qU
تx\
(SDI) T11
، T21(SSDI) hUا}bUا ¥qr
. ]›uTd ةءZ’“ —pZ“و
‚zRbUا hj هZX~Uا 79.7
و 74.7 hj ٪ Uا •m}~
Uا hqX…
تx\Zc~qU T11
، T21
—pZ“ ]Xf hj ،hUا}bUا ¥qr 83.1
و 78.2 ŒXSUا •m}\ hj ٪ تx\Zc~qU
(SDI)T11 ، T21(SSDI) hUا}bUا ¥qr
. fواRdو
— ]\ هZX~Uا ‚X†Zbpإ 4.9
¥Uإ 7.0 •®“
/
3م hj Uا •mا}~
Uا و hqX…
5 ¥Uإ 7.1
•®“
/
3م hj Uا ŒXSUا •mا}~
. هZX~Uا ‚X†Zbpإ —pZ“و 7.0
و 7.1
•®“
/
3م
‚q\Zc~qU T21
hj Uا •mا}~
Uا hqX…
h’XSUاو ماeTbmZz hUا}bUا ¥qr يRUا
¬`ƒUا —[d –X‡…bUZz .
نZ“ e‡j œUذ l\و 6.5
و 6.1
•®“
/
3م
‚q\Zc~qU T21
•mا}\ hj Uا hqX…
XSUاو h’
ماeTbmZz hUا}bUا ¥qr z يRUا
[`ƒUا –X‡…bUZ h
‚›eXq‡bUا يRUا ‚q\Zc\ l\ ‚pرZ‡\ ، )
T00
( hbUا pZ“
— 4.9
و 5
“
®
• /
3م •mا}\ hj Uا و hqX…
h’XSUا hUا}bUا ¥qr . ‚q\Zc~Uا ¥j ZiU ˜~X| hqrا —pZ“ هZX~Uا ةRjو žXf ]\
T21 —`rأ žXf hqX…Uا •m}~Uا hj 37.7
% —pZ“ ‚~X| W|أ —pZ“و
~qU ‚q\Zc T21
—pZ“و h’XSUا •m}~Uا hj 23.2
% ىeXq‡bUا h[`ƒUا يRUا ‚q\Zc~z ‚pرZ‡~UZz T00
يRqU ‚Xq•j‰ا —pZ“ h[`m —[bUاو h[`ƒUا –X‡…bUZz يRUا مZ p ‚pرZ‡\ e…rو ،
‚aƒ…z h[`m —[d 9.5
% و hqX…Uا •m}~qU ‚aƒ…UZz 11.8
% h’XSUا •m}~qU ‚aƒ…UZz .
ª•Zb…Uا ]\و ¬•dا نا ماeTbmا
‚Uوe†
يRUا hbUا d ناudšا مZ p ¥qr e~bc h•Z~Uا
—[d مZ p
يRUا —[d –X‡…bUZz h[`m
‡\
Z ‚pر يRUZz z –X‡…bUZ Uا h[`m —[bUا lab~
Rj}d هZX\
يRUا ‚aƒ…z 11.8 % لدZc› Z~z 255
3م / ناej / •m}~Uا ه„ھو ‚XjZ“ ‚X~™Uا يRU
¥Uا WSd ‚fZƒ\
563.68
2م ) 0.134 ناej ( RUا مZ p ماeTbmا l\
h•Z~Uا ناudšا ¥qr e~bc› ى„Uا h[`m —[d –X‡…bUZz ي
، ¥Uا ‚aƒ…Uا ه„ھ WSd Z•›أو 8.6
% يRUا ‚pرZ‡\ ‚UZf hj z
–X‡…bUZ
h[`ƒUا h•Z~Uا ناudšا ¥qr يRUا hj e~bc› ى„Uا ىR«‰ا قR`UZz
cab~Uا
˜ . ŒXUZ™bUا ]\ Wq‡›و ‚|Z`Uا hj Rj}› Z•›أ ا„ھو
‚XUZ~†šا .
